Back Pain and Your Job

 

 

This article is reprinted from, and is the property of the Back Association of Canada (BAC).

Sit much? Well, how much? What causes most people's back pain? The person who finds a cut and dried answer to that one will win the Nobel Prize. Not that the question hasn't been studied. Over the years, many back pain researchers have directed their energies to the issue of cause.

This does not mean, however, that you cannot be treated successfully. Quite the contrary! Over the past few years, health care professionals have realized that, when it comes to treating back pain, it's almost always enough to know the category - or categories - into which the problem falls. Narrowing the problem down further doesn't usually make a whole lot of difference since the conservative treatment for each category is more or less the same.

A few decades ago, trauma (falls, for instance) was extremely popular as a cause while, in recent years, a lot of attention has been paid to sitting. During the years between, lifting has been at the top of the list. So has "cause unknown". For instance, Dr. C. Hirsch, an American researcher, found that it was impossible to pinpoint the cause for six out of ten of the back pain sufferers he studied.

The problem is that back pain is complex. Just for openers, we are talking about a problem whose source - never mind whose cause - cannot, in many cases, be identified. (Is the pain coming from the 4th lumbar vertebra, or the 5th? The facet joint or the disc?). A second issue is that a person's state of mind plays an important role. An anxious person who has a back injury can end up with a serious, long-lasting problem, while someone else is back to normal in a couple of days. So it makes sense that linking cause and effect can be a nightmare.

With that in mind, an interesting study was published by another American researcher, Dr. Alexander Magora. Rather than trying to link back pain with a specific cause - like a fall or a poor lifting technique - Dr. Magora studied the occupations of more than 3,300 people. He was interested to know how much of their work day people spent doing three particular kinds of tasks: tasks that required them to sit; tasks that required them to stand; and, tasks that required them to lift.

In the case of sitting and standing, the workers were divided into three categories. Often meant that a person sat for more than 4 hours each working day; sometimes meant between two and four hours each day, on average; and rarely or nevermeant that a person sat for less than two hours a day. (In the case of lifting, the categories were a bit different since the weight of the object also had to be considered.)

The results were very interesting, especially when it came to sitting. For example, hardly any of the back pain sufferers in Dr. Magora's study (3.5%) had jobs that required them to sit "sometimes". On the other hand, more than half of the back pain sufferers sat "rarely, or never" (54%). And a little less than half of them had jobs which required them to sit "often" (42%).

"Both too much sitting, and too little sitting," Dr. Magora concluded, "seems to be related to low back pain ." To put it simply, people are far less likely to suffer from a bad back if their jobs require them to do a variety of tasks - some sitting, some standing, some lifting - during the course of the work day.

It will require a commitment from management if a change in job routine is going to happen on a large scale. In the meantime, however, many of us could change our work habits, if we made it a priority in our own minds. For instance, if you have three hours of typing and two hours of filing, why not divide it up into 20 minute chunks? At the very least, it can't do your back any harm.

Personal Trainers: Train More Clients, Make More, Have More Freedom

Is Marijuana a Good Cancer Treatment?

Is Marijuana a Good Cancer Treatment?     Many advocates say a certain plant is a potent anti-cancer treatment — and they do have some facts to roll out to support their case. When I tell you the plant is cannabis, or marijuana, you won't be surprised to learn the U.S. government hopes most Americans never hear the evidence.     Does it really have any medical benefit? We decided to look into it. . . Continued below. . . Show a Younger Face to the World     By repairing your skin's DNA, you can soften your skin and erase wrinkles, tighten up your sagging jaw line, make your crow's feet disappear, and banish sun and aging spots.     This Nobel Prize winning secret makes it possible. Your "telomeres" determine how long your skin cells live. Telomeres are the "time keepers" attached to every strand of DNA. Each time your cells divide, your telomeres get shorter. The shorter your telomeres, the more your skin cells age… causing dry and wrinkled skin. Maintain the length of your telomeres, your skin will stay supple, radiant, and youthful.     Dr. Sears' Revive DNA Rejuvenation Cream turns back your skin's aging clock and helps you show a younger face to the world. Click here to find out more.     Now this WON'T be a discussion about the merits of rolling dried weed and smoking it for a medically approved high! The "medical marijuana" movement is mostly a wedge to get the drug legalized for recreational use. It's not my topic today. As I'll explain, I don't think inhaling the smoke is a good idea.     Rather, you're about to learn about the powerful anti-cancer properties of hemp oil extracted from the cannabis plant. This very strong form of cannabis is supported by pre-clinical, in vitro, and animal studies.     According to Dr. Robert Melamede, associate professor of biology at the University of Colorado, "over 600 peer-reviewed articles show that numerous cancer types (lung, breast, prostate, glioma, thyroid, leukemia, lymphoma, basal cell carcinoma, melanoma, etc.) are killed by cannabinoids in tissue culture and animal studies."1     And medical marijuana proponent Rick Simpson said many of today's Big Pharma heavyweights actually sold hemp-based medicines in the 1800's and early 1900's! So this might make you wonder… Why all the HOOPLA about HEMP?     The Latin name "Cannabis sativa" actually translates as "useful hemp." The moniker is on target, considering that this plant provides fiber that is used to make clothing and shoes… seeds and oil that are helpful in foods and medicines… and even pulp to make paper.     Hemp oil is an excellent source of omega-3 essential fatty acids. You probably know those as the "good fats" that help control cholesterol, fight inflammation and ward off heart disease.     But the plant's anti-cancer properties lie deep inside its main psychoactive component, tetrahydrocannabinol—or THC for short. Its benefits were highlighted in 2008 by some laboratory tests conducted by a team of scientists from Spain, France and Italy. According to results published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation2, THC stimulated death of brain cancer cells—while simultaneously leaving non-cancerous cells unharmed.     Alternative health practitioner Marc Sircus, Ac., OMD said the August 15, 2004 issue of Cancer Research3 similarly declared that THC stopped the spread of brain cancer in human tumor biopsies.     What's more, THC also selectively prevented the gamma herpes virus from activating and multiplying. Researchers believe these viruses may increase the chances of developing cancers such as Kaposi's Sarcoma, Burkitt's lymphoma and Hodgkin's disease.     But here's the kicker: This is not new information…     Paul Armentano, Deputy Director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), said federal bureaucrats actually commissioned the first experiment documenting the anti-cancer effects of cannabis in 1974 at the Medical College of Virginia.     According to study results published in an August 18, 1974, Washington Post newspaper article, THC "slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent."     These findings were even published the following year in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.     So why is this scientifically supported anti-cancer treatment not a staple in hospitals and cancer treatment centers? The war against weed rages on     Despite the early findings about the positive health benefits of THC and hemp oil, the government continued to designate the herb as a "Schedule 1 controlled substance." Armentano said this essentially classifies the plant as a drug with a "high potential for abuse" and "no accepted medical use."     Since then, 15 states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws to promote and protect the medical use of marijuana. Nevertheless, Armentano said this won't necessarily stop Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) raids and arrests on medical marijuana suppliers and patients.     Federal law still trumps state law—and in this case, that still makes it illegal to possess or distribute marijuana. For that matter, the government has to grant permission for anyone to even conduct clinical research on marijuana.     Many advocates who support complete legalization of marijuana for medical use say the pharmaceutical industry is behind the federal frenzy against widespread use.     If the drug companies can't make enough dough on a natural substance — they feel you're better off without it! Can hemp oil really be that safe and effective?     Although hemp oil itself is a legal product, Andrew Weil, M.D., a professor at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, said the type of hemp grown to produce oil has a low THC content that decreases throughout the production process. It's not potent enough to be of medical use.     Rick Simpson advocates in-home extraction of hemp oil to ensure that higher concentrations of THC remain active. He has shared his process in the YouTube documentary Run from the Cure and has even shared samples of the oil with cancer patients.     But this is also why Simpson is living in Europe as a fugitive from the Canadian government.     Simpson is not a doctor and does not have a medical or scientific education. His administration of hemp oil treatments to cancer patients did not win him the favor of Canadian government officials.     Regardless of continued government resistance, some folks are convinced by anecdotal evidence and available studies that hemp oil is no snake oil! For that matter, many members of mainstream medicine agree that the cannabis plant may be useful to cancer patients suffering from anorexia, anxiety, depression, nausea, and pain.     But Dr. Lester Grinspoon, associate professor emeritus of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and author of Marijuana: The Forbidden Medicine urges caution in adopting this treatment.     Grinspoon said "while there is growing evidence from animal studies that [hemp oil] may shrink tumor cells and cause other promising salutary effects in some cancers, there is no present evidence that it cures any of the many different types of cancer. I think the day will come when it…will be demonstrated to have cancer-curative powers, but in the meantime, we must be very cautious about what we promise these patients."4     My take is that a cannabis extract may someday take its place in the array of natural cancer treatments available to all — but we're not there yet. Meanwhile, I think it would be hazardous and impractical for my readers to try to obtain high-potency hemp oil and experiment on themselves or their loved ones.     As for the kind of cannabis you smoke, it seems to me the damage to the respiratory system (and possibly to other body systems) is likely to outweigh any benefits. I've also seen plenty of evidence that it accelerates the aging process, most likely by creating a massive cascasde of free radicals, much the way tobacco smoke does. Inhaling smoke is not a healthy idea, even if it is a delivery system for a drug that might help fight cancer.     Having come of age during the hippie era, I can tell you the drug does a great deal of harm. I'm convinced it's addictive — despite what some advocates claim — and in most cases it turns frequent users into bumbling underachievers.     Put a pothead side by side with a non-user of the same age and you'll be shocked by the difference. A 25-year-old non-user looks like a rosy-cheeked child compared to a 25-year-old pothead. A 60-year-old pothead looks like someone 85.     But the medical uses of the drug do make a fascinating subject, and someday I hope researchers are able to legally find out whether a cannabis extract is a good cancer treatment.

The real reason you don't feel well

Sick and don't know why? This could be the reason     Does the term "healthy" come to mind when you see the words wheat, barley and rye? When eaten as whole grains, they do provide health benefits for most folks who eat them. But not for everyone. In fact, ditching these products may be one of the best steps you can take for good health. Keep reading to find out why. . . Continued below. . . You're being conned!     Your doctor told you to kiss bread goodbye...but your cramping and gas didn't stop. The truth? There are so many OTHER foods containing lectins that could be upsetting your digestive health! An amazing blend of nutrients can promote your gut's health and allow you to splurge on the foods you love on occasion. Click here to learn more.     Whole grain wheat, barley and rye can be good sources of complex carbohydrates, as well as some key vitamins and minerals. And according to the Mayo Clinic1 — they may even help lower your risk of heart disease, diabetes and certain cancers.     Now that's the good news for the majority of folks who eat them. Unfortunately, some people have difficulty digesting the protein called gluten found in these grains.     But the damage goes far beyond digestive upset. Gluten intolerance is associated with a wide range of "mystery" medical problems that have stumped the victims — and their doctors.     The sad truth for many people with gluten intolerance is that they run a greater risk of developing intestinal cancer! Gluten, gluten everywhere…     You might have never thought about it, but many of your favorite foods could be made from grains that contain gluten. I'm talking about tasty items such as warm, delicious breads and cookies… mouth-watering pizza… and even a tall, frosty mug of beer!     If you find yourself belching often and being troubled by frequent bouts of stomach-rumbling gas—your gut could be sending you a warning.     Your digestive troubles could be a sign that you suffer from gluten intolerance. The worst form of gluten intolerance is celiac disease, an inherited autoimmune condition that affects nearly 3 million American children and adults. It's a very serious illness. What's more, experts think it could affect far more than 3 million.     The Celiac Disease Foundation2 said people with celiac disease have a permanent intolerance to foods containing gluten. This protein does two harmful things: It prevents your body from properly absorbing nutrients, and It causes inflammation and damage to the small intestine. A 72% higher risk of dying     Left untreated, the complications from celiac disease can be fatal. A study of more than 30,000 patients reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association featured data gathered from 1969 until 2008. Patients either had: 1) celiac disease, 2) intestinal inflammation but not full-blown celiac disease or 3) gluten sensitivity.     Researchers found that subjects with full-blown celiac disease had a 39% higher risk of dying. The risk was a whopping 72% for those with intestinal inflammation, and 35% for those with gluten sensitivity!     Research now shows many other chronic health conditions are triggered by gluten sensitivity and intolerance. And most of the time, doctors don't know that gluten sensitivity is the culprit. Here's why gluten keeps some doctors scratching their heads…     Dr. Thomas O'Bryan is a board-certified clinical nutritionist who's studied many of the underlying causes of metabolic disorders and chronic disease. In the DVD Unlocking the Mystery of Wheat and Gluten Sensitivity, Dr. O'Bryan quoted a 1996 report from the American Celiac Society that showed the majority of celiac patients visited five or more doctors before their condition was diagnosed properly!     In short, the vast majority of people with wheat sensitivity and/or celiac are undiagnosed. They're sick and don't know why — and neither does their doctor.     Why all the mystery? One reason is there are no signs or symptoms typical for all people with celiac disease. Some people experience abdominal pain, bloating and intermittent diarrhea—and others may have no symptoms at all.     What's more, celiac disease can mimic symptoms of other conditions, such as anemia, Chron's disease, irritable bowel syndrome and gastric ulcers.     It doesn't stop with the GI tract. Dr. O'Bryan said gluten intolerance may cause inflammation throughout the body, which can trigger a variety of health problems including: Autoimmune disorders (lupus, thyroid disease, etc.) Attention Deficit Disorder Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Depression and anxiety attacks Epilepsy Multiple Sclerosis Migraines Rheumatoid arthritis Schizophrenia And a host of other illnesses!     Worse still, research shows a person with undiagnosed celiac disease has an increased chance of developing cancer or lymphomas of the small intestine.     The odds have soared that you or someone you know may need to remove gluten from their diet. In fact, Dr. Joseph Murray, M.D., a Mayo Clinic gastroenterologist, called celiac disease a "public health issue."3     One study compared blood tests of 10,000 people from fifty years ago with tests on 10,000 people today. Researchers found a 400 percent increase in full-blown celiac disease!     So what can you do to protect yourself from the health problems associated with celiac disease? You MUST take this important step     The first way to address gluten intolerance is to avoid all foods that contain gluten. And remember, this involves more than just avoiding grains.     One of our valued sponsors, True Health, offers a supplement that reduces the symptoms of gluten intolerance. I guess you can even have bread or a piece of cake once in a while if you take these supplements, and you won't feel distress. It sounds like it's worth looking into -- click here if you want to know more.     But let me stress that this is just a BandAid solution. If you're gluten-intolerant, you need to give up all foods that contain gluten. Period. And if you've got celiac disease — not just run-of-the-mill gluten intolerance -- you can NEVER have anything with gluten in it, supplement or no supplement. Celiac disease is dangerous. Read this BEFORE you lick another envelope or stamp!     The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases said gluten is also hiding in products such as lip balms, medicines, and even in the glue on some envelopes and postage stamps!     Don't toss all your stationery just yet. Most envelopes made in the U.S. use glue made from corn-based products. And U.S. postage stamps use sticky adhesives that don't require a lick.     But be on the watch for the sneaky buzz words that really could be wrecking your gluten-free diet such as: Emulsifier Flavoring Hydrolyzed Stabilizer Starch     If you're wondering whether you have gluten intolerance, your doctor can run tests to diagnose your condition. Once you know whether you have problems with gluten—you can develop an action plan for healthier eating.     So does following a gluten-free diet mean all your food will be boring and taste like cardboard? Hardly! I'm on a no-wheat diet and I've found delicious breads and crackers that are made without wheat (my personal favorite is a millet-flax bread).     Many grains and starches such as buckwheat, corn, flax, millet, rice and tapioca can still be part of a gluten-free eating plan. And so can beans, eggs, nuts, fresh meats, fruits and vegetables.     What's more, many specialty food stores offer tasty products that are clearly labeled as gluten-free. This can take some of the hassle out of your trips to the grocery store!     Sueson Vess, consultant, food coach and author of gluten-free cookbooks, offers several suggestions on how to cook delicious meals that won't tie your stomach in knots—or put your life at risk! You might consider checking out her website at www.specialeats.com.     People with celiac disease who make the effort to eat a gluten-free diet often reduce their symptoms and experience fewer complications from the disease. Surely the sacrifices you might make will pale in comparison to the years of healthy living you may gain!

Movie star smile not such a good idea

Whitening your teeth is not safe and harmless     So, you've decided to seek the glamour of a movie star…     Years of drinking coffee, tea, or other dark colored beverages — or even smoking — have darkened your teeth, and spurred the urge to get them whitened.     According to the American Academy of Cosmetic Dentistry, it's the single most requested cosmetic dental procedure by people of all ages… and the numbers are growing by a staggering 25.1% a year. The Academy also notes that the number of whitening and bleaching procedures has increased more than 300% during the 5 years from 2002 to 2007.1     So it's popular, for sure. But is it good for your health? We looked into it. . . Continued below. . . Drink This and Cancer Comes Pouring Out of Your Body     "If I could pick only one treatment to cure my cancer, this would be it," says a top expert on alternative cancer treatments.     Research conducted by a scientist at the Detroit Institute of Cancer Research showed this is one of the world's most powerful cancer cures. Even the mainstream National Cancer Institute confirmed that this do-it-yourself treatment kills cancer cells. Then they buried the research.     Personally, I've been writing about cancer treatments for almost seven years. Out of nearly 400 that I've investigated, I haven't found an at-home treatment that's better.     In fact, it's likely that NO treatment is better, even the ones provided by top alternative cancer doctors. Yet you can purchase this remarkable breakthrough over-the-counter, without a prescription.     It worked for Robert, age 54, who had late stage stomach cancer. His doctors told him he didn't have chance. The most they could do was buy him a little time, using four aggressive chemotherapy drugs PLUS radiation — a deadly, toxic, last-ditch treatment.     INSTEAD Robert used this non-toxic liquid and was completely cancer-free within months. The amazed doctor was forced to admit Robert's cancer was "in remission." Two years later, he was still cancer-free.     Click here and watch an important video presentation about this discovery. Two processes for whitening your teeth      A "whitening" process can work in one of two ways… It can bleach the tooth, meaning it actually changes your natural tooth color. Bleaching products contain peroxides that help remove both deep and surface stains. Non-bleaching products contain agents that help remove surface stains only — by either physical or chemical action.      Whiteners can either be administered by dentists or purchased over the counter (OTC).     Do-it-yourself OTC whiteners, as you might assume, are a lot less expensive, but require more effort. They consist of very thin, almost invisible, strips coated with a peroxide-based gel. You apply these strips for 30 minutes twice daily over the course of two weeks. Final results last about four months. These strips contain 10 percent carbamide peroxide.     Professionally administered whiteners are the quickest route to whiter teeth, and are sometimes combined with heat, light or laser treatment. You can get dramatic results during a single one-hour appointment, though it's often repeated several times.     This kind uses a hydrogen peroxide solution ranging from 15 to 35 percent. The practitioner protects your gum tissues with a rubber dam, or a protective gel.     There are also whitening toothpastes available on the market. They contain polishing or chemical agents (instead of bleaches) to remove surface stains. The ADA 'Seal of Acceptance' — should you trust it?     All whitening products carrying the American Dental Association (ADA) Seal of Acceptance contain 35 percent hydrogen peroxide. However, there is no requirement demanding this concentration.     In water, carbamide peroxide breaks down into hydrogen peroxide and urea. Other ingredients may include glycerin, carbopol, sodium hydroxide, and flavoring agents.     A couple things to note here…     First, the ADA is reluctant to give its seal of approval to do-it-yourself OTC products. The association's viewpoint is that only dentists should administer tooth whiteners — "because professional consultation is important to the procedure's safety and effectiveness".     Their "Seal of Acceptance" should perhaps make you as a consumer just a bit skeptical when coming from an organization that has been promoting poisons like mercury fillings and fluoride for more than half a century. We published our opinion on their shenanigans in a Special Report called The Secret Poison in Your Mouth. Big dangers, little dangers…     According to the ADA, the most common side effects from either hydrogen or carbaminde peroxide are tooth sensitivity and gum irritation.     Tooth sensitivity is likely to occur mostly during the early stages of bleaching… and tissue irritation is often from a poorly-fitting tray that holds the whitener. Both are said to be temporary and to cease after treatment.     On rare occasions though, irreversible tooth damage has been reported. And the treatment is often ill advised for patients with many fillings, crowns, or very dark stains.     In sum, this is the ADA position: There have been a few problems, mostly minor, and the procedure is generally safe. As you may have guessed, there are other opinions.     Drugs.com advises that all medicines may cause side effects — and while whiteners typically cause no side effects, potential severe side effects are possible with carbamide peroxide solutions — rashes, hives, itching, breathing difficulties, chest tightness, and swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue.     But wait… it may be worse than that. Not to imply that breathing difficulties, chest tightness, or uncontrolled swelling or hives are minor… Britain warns of the dangers of whiteners     It seems to have been kept hush-hush in the States, but four years ago, Britain warned all dentists and beauty salons in Gateshead of potential dangers from tooth whitening products… after discovering that many of these products contain dangerous chemicals such as hydrogen peroxide and carbamide peroxide far in excess of permitted levels.     That level in the UK is only 0.1%. But some products were found to have levels as high as 10.0% -- a staggering 100 times the permitted level. Another product was found to be 60 times the permitted level.     Officials are very concerned about finding products that breach safety guidelines by 60 to 100 times. It's a cosmetic, not a drug. . .so they say     Meanwhile, in the United States, tooth whiteners are classified as a "cosmetic", not as a drug (even though they contain chemicals), and are therefore unregulated. So it's "buyer beware".     Dentist Martin Fallowfield — spokesperson from the British Dental Association — warns that some home tooth whitener kits contain the same acid used to disinfect swimming pools, chlorine dioxide.     And, it's not always listed on the label.     He says the chemicals destroy your tooth's protective enamel… they obtain their whitening effect by etching your tooth's surface.     This causes sensitive teeth, and in extreme cases can lead to tooth loss. It can also lead to chemical burns on your gums (furthering your risk of tooth loss).     Ironically, it also can cause further discoloration due to the destruction of your protective enamel, making those teeth more easily stained by food or drink.     Furthermore, if the mouth guard containing the bleach fits poorly, your gums will be exposed for an extended time… causing soft tissue burns, irreversible gum recession, tooth decay and sensitivity.     If you swallow the chemical while the trays are in your mouth — which is very easy to do — you can also burn your throat, stomach and gut.     Whitening toothpastes may seem like harmless alternatives to the procedures I've just described. But they often use abrasive ingredients such as sand to polish stains off. They're less risky in one way — no chemical burns or gum recession — but they can damage teeth. New warnings about long-term damage to teeth     Unfortunately, no one quite knows the long-term effects of the popular bleaching products, regardless of where they're administered.     Andrew Eder, professor of restorative dentistry and dental education at UCL Eastman Dental Institute (UK), says, "Teeth are porous, so whatever you put on the enamel, and especially on the deeper dentine, may have an effect deep inside the tooth over many years."2     He suggests using products short term only, never on an ongoing basis — and only if you feel you must. On top of all the other problems, whiteners may cause cancer     In 2004, WebMD ran an article suggesting the possibility of tooth whitening products leading to oral cancer.     They pointed to Georgetown University Hospital researchers who say the active ingredient in popular whiteners may be the reason two young people in their 20s with no other markers for cancer developed advanced tongue cancer. This is very speculative, and one case doesn't make a conclusion.     But whiteners are one of several possible explanations for an increase in oral cancers among young people. Under normal circumstances, almost all victims of oral cancers are older folks with bad habits that clearly contributed to their disease.     Ninety percent of oral cancers strike people over age 45 who are long term smokers or drinkers.     But still, some doctors question whether the blame should be pointed at tooth whiteners or to some other exposure.     Bruce Davidson, MD, FACS, chairman of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery at the Georgetown hospital, suggests it may be linked to the carbamide peroxide — one-third of which is composed of hydrogen peroxide. Further, carbamide peroxide changes into hydrogen peroxide when used as a whitener.     Peroxide was shown to promote cancer growth inside the cheeks of rodents and to cause GI cancers when ingested. I found no reports of human testing on this.     So, the theory goes that when hydrogen peroxide gel leaks from the trays into your mouth, it releases free radicals. At least one doctor says, "Think twice"     Dr. Davidson told WebMD, "If I was in the market for teeth whitening, I'd think twice about it."3     Davidson reported at the 6th International Conference on Head and Neck Cancer the cases of two patients who developed advanced tongue cancer decades earlier than would be normal… after repeatedly using tooth whitening products.     Both patients drank only occasionally. One was a light smoker; the other didn't smoke at all.     They were part of a group of 19 oral cancer patients (of all ages) studied by Davidson's team of head and neck cancer surgeons.     Two of the six patients who developed oral cancer prior to age 40 used tooth whiteners. And both had more advanced cancer than the others, despite not smoking or drinking more heavily. A middle aged man with tongue cancer also used tooth whitening polish. But the others did not use any bleaching products. The medical community's opinion...?     Terry Day, MD and director of head and neck oncologic surgery at Hollings Cancer Center at the Medical University of South Carolina and spokesperson for the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, says we should pay attention to this study… because of the huge spike in consumers seeking a movie star smile, and the rise in oral cancers in young people, especially cancer of the tongue.     However, the small size of the study doesn't provide enough support for a final conclusion that tooth whiteners are carcinogenic.     Davidson's study is believed to be the first to consider a link between cancer and tooth whiteners.     Meanwhile, the ADA says there's no evidence that tooth whiteners increase cancer risk or cause other problems (though they admit that some people do abuse them).     Of course, dentists have much to gain if whiteners can be proclaimed as "safe", given the huge boon in their whitening cosmetic dentistry business.     Whiteners applied by dentists cost upwards of $200. A customized tray is used, theoretically reducing the risk of hydrogen peroxide leakage. But Davidson reports studies that show that less than 50% of the whitener is still in the tray one hour after application, representing significant leakage. It's a clear hint that customers are ingesting the stuff. My recommendation…?     Until we get more data indicating whether or not whiteners are definitively linked to oral cancer, I'm inclined to stick to my toothbrush and organic toothpaste. Just for the record, my dentist advised me against whiteners long ago because of the damage they do to the enamel, and I've followed his advice. I just live with my yellowed, old-dude teeth.     Your addiction to glamour could have unwanted consequences — and it may be years before we can say for sure.     Meanwhile, industrial society keeps producing other wonders. Our last issue wrote about one of them — a prostate cancer treatment for which you need the most expensive medical machine ever made, one that requires a building as large as a football field. If you missed this doozy, we're repeating it again just below. You Can Now Treat Prostate Cancer with the Most Expensive Medical Device in the History of the World     If you've heard that proton therapy is the magic bullet for prostate cancer, be warned: There's a lot of money tied up in this therapy, but not a lot of research. That's a scary combination for any health treatment. Let's look at the facts. . . Continued below. . . Toxic chemical condemned 8 men to die of prostate cancer . . .but one of them escaped. Here's how he did it!     John S. watched helplessly as 7 of his Vietnam platoon buddies died of prostate cancer, one by one. They were exposed to chemicals during the war that caused them to get cancer when they reached middle age. Then, in 2002, John found out it was his turn. He got opinions from three different doctors and they all told him the same thing: he'd need a miracle to survive.     John found the miracle he needed. Four years after his diagnosis, he told us, "I am healthy and happy with no symptoms of the disease." He actually wishes he'd gotten the disease sooner so he could have told his Army buddies this secret. It might have saved their lives.     We're ALL exposed every day to chemicals similar to the ones that killed these veterans. A man is just about certain to get prostate cancer if he lives long enough. That means John's life-saving secret is big news for men everywhere. Click here and keep reading. . . This treatment definitely has some advantages     Proton therapy isn't even a new breakthrough, although the public didn't get interested till recently.     The therapy was initially prompted by Dr. James Slater of Massachusetts General, who first started harvesting protons from a Harvard cyclotron in the early 1960s. Dr. Slater had been disheartened by the side effects of radiation treatment (using X-rays) and has since devoted most of his professional life to bringing proton-based treatments to medical facilities.     Proton therapy itself is fairly simple. It uses a beam of protons to inject a tumor with radiation. Protons are one of the three main particles that make up atoms (the other two are electrons and neutrons). Protons have a positive charge while electrons have a negative charge.     Like X-rays, protons wreck the genetic makeup of a tumor. More importantly, proton therapy is much more precise than other radiation therapies, but without the side effects.     For example, when a patient undergoes X-ray treatment, tissues surrounding the tumor site are easily destroyed. The side-effects and resulting sickness can be overwhelming.     But in proton therapy, the stream of charged particles can be tailored to the contours of the tumor, without affecting any tissues except the tumor.     Unfortunately (and like too many things in the medical industry), proton therapy suffers from a money bias. Construction costs for a proton-beam generator can top $200 million, making it the most expensive medical device ever invented.     One of the reasons the treatment is so expensive is that protons aren't exactly easy to harvest. For proton therapy, protons must be stripped from hydrogen atoms and then moved into a stream that is nearly as fast as the speed of light.     The device that makes this possible weighs around 220 tons and must be housed in a structure at least the size of a football field. So, beyond the cost of the machine itself come considerable construction expenses for any hospital toying with the idea of offering this treatment. But here's the worst problem of all. . .     Proton therapy involves spending a stupefying amount of money on something that doesn't necessarily work better than other prostate cancer treatments. Anthony Zietman, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and past president of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, has gone on record saying proton therapy is a very good treatment for prostates, but "It just doesn't appear to be superior treatment."     In the world of peer-reviewed journals, they won't be able to say whether proton therapy deserves all the rave reviews it's gotten until somebody puts together a decade-long, randomized trial to see which treatments have the best outcome overall.     In the meantime, the Internet has become a serious hindrance to spreading accurate information about this treatment. Loads of blogs and websites run by men who had success with their own proton treatment laud the benefits of proton therapy. I don't deny that they have good intentions. Many of these enthusiastic Internet writers feel proton therapy was the best and only cure for their prostate cancers.     Plus, men love the fact that's it's non-invasive. Who wouldn't? After all, few things shake a man's pride like the idea of losing bladder function or becoming impotent. A man's well-being after conventional radiation or surgery can be very poor indeed.     But the buzz reminds me of prime-time commercials from the pharmaceutical industry (although more honest, I hope). When you see a commercial for the latest and greatest pill, featuring happy people evangelizing a drug, it's hard not to wonder if it might work for you.     Just remember, the bloggers are comparing proton therapy to conventional radiation and surgery. To be fair, it IS an improvement — a very expensive one. But why go there at all?     The problem in this case is that too many websites are written by guys who aren't aware of the costs-versus-benefits of this treatment, much less the benefits of alternative cancer treatments. They're excited by the high-level technology — the ultimate power tool for guys — and they give false hope to millions of men searching the Internet for legitimate answers.     The bias for proton therapy technology continues to grow with time, making it hard to put together any kind of a reliable study on outcomes. Researchers are finding that men who went in thinking proton treatment was superior, who then have unexpected and unnecessary side effects, still advocate proton therapy as the best choice they could have made.     Marketers call it "post-purchase dissonance." When people have made an important choice, they have to convince themselves they did the right thing. If the purchase is a let-down, some people go into denial and still insist they made a good choice.     And remember, as with most medical therapies these days, the advice you get from doctors is subject to a ton of bias. Dr. Zietman, while being interviewed for an article in Men's Health last year, said, "In the absence of knowledge, anything goes. Surgeons recommend their favorite surgery. Radiation oncologists recommend their favorite form of radiation."     It follows that oncologists smitten with cool technology — and with making money — recommend proton therapy. Money-driven healthcare, the vampire that's sucking the life out of our country     What's obvious here is that the least expensive option for treating early-stage prostate cancer rarely gets lip service from the experts. Officially, it's called "active surveillance." You may know it as "watchful waiting."     Watchful waiting boils down to closely monitoring a patient and watching for any signs of growth in his cancer. If there's no growth, there's no treatment. If there is growth, the patient gets treated. Most prostate tumors are slow-growing. There's no pressing need to take action. And there are dozens of safe nutrients, foods and herbal remedies a man can use to control or eliminate prostate tumors without resorting to radiation, chemotherapy and surgery at all. I gave readers my take on all this in my Special Report, Don't Touch My Prostate.     Proton treatment sounds to me like technology-driven medicine gone crazy. Frightened people with cancer are willing to buy into any kind of nonsense recommended by the men in white coats, and of course we all get handed the bill.     Medical care is the single biggest expense driving the country into bankruptcy and potential social and political collapse. Meanwhile, to the doctors and industrialists meting out the treatments, there are massive profits to be had treating prostate cancer with protons.     Proton therapy isn't worthless. Far from it. It actually shows more reliable promise for treating brain, eye, and spinal cord tumors, as well as certain kinds of tumors in children.     But treating something like childhood cancers requires multiple, lengthy sessions and insurance companies are loath to cover it.     Prostate patients, on the other hand, are in and out in 20 minutes and need fewer total treatments. Medicare and most insurance companies cover the cost without hassle. And there are a lot of prostate cancer cases to funnel through the system.     It's healthcare dictated by money, which is the worst kind.     I should point out that even with the heavy emphasis on proton therapy as a miracle cure, it's hard to come by. Only 1% of radiation oncologists in the U.S. have experience in proton therapy. And right now, there are only nine proton centers in operation (though eight more are in development, which shows how the medical industry is responding to demand). Sometimes the best healthcare means bucking the trends     Conclusive studies are a long way off. But for now, the best information we can find is that proton treatment is not much better than standard radiation treatment — just more expensive and more techno-fancy.     I admit, it's hard to beat claims like those made by Loma Linda Medical Center on their website's "Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer" page: "More accurate, non-invasive, painless, provided in an outpatient setting, little impact on energy level, and requires no recovery."     But don't be so sure it's a good choice. There are many, many easy alternative treatments I'd try first.